Creation Science - Challenging the Theory of Evolution
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 июн 2009
- Part 4 of a 7-part series with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott: Science, Religion, and Evolutionary Theory.
Dr. Scott discusses the history of creationism/intelligent design, which was revived in the United States in the 1960s. Some conservative Christians believe that teaching evolution in schools represents a challenge to religion and God. Similarly, the belief still exists that humans and dinosaurs were created at the same time.
Recorded at the 'Biology of Genomes' meeting at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, June 1, 2009.
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Music Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Young earth quote of the day:
"There are virtually no transitional fossils, only extinct ones. "
John S
Professor Emeritus at Discovery Institute
Phd, Young Earth Sciences
Lol
It’s pointless to get into an argument about the Adam and Eve creation story versus evolution.
It is comparing apples to origins.
For anyone arguing with a person who thinks the universe is 6k years old, you may need to reevaluate your priorities. It is akin to teaching your grandpa how to use computers... it's just not gonna happen.
1. I've taught grandparents to use computers.
2. My top priority is to call out their terrible arguments for my own amusement.
I agree with you except that I think it should be considered that some people want schools to teach creationism as an actual scientific theory. I do think children should know about creationism but they should also understand what makes for an actual scientific theory and what doesn't.
@@hineraable they should know about creationism just as they know about flat earth, moon conspiracy, and big foot, creationism should not be taught in school if they want to learn it at church that is fine but public money should not be wasted to teach things that aren't evidence based or do not have scientific consensus.
Well, the challenge stands. Can anyone, anyone at all find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix? We've had a few failures so far on this video, but nothing substantial. This should be easy if creationists had anything.
If you reply, you will be required to back up your claims with reasoning and evidence.
Sure. Evolution theory requires the violation of its own rules of monophyly and is therefore inherently self-refuting.
Creation does not require the violation of its own rules and is therefore not inherently self-refuting
@@lightbeforethetunnel That's a cool set of claims. Now let's see your evidence and reasoning to back them up.
And silence....
@@Ozzyman200 Let me try, evolution claims we all come from a common ancestor, so can I get an example of a common ancestor between two kinds of animals, and the evolution into those kinds. By kind I am referring to a whole different type of animal. Sure you could bring up how we have the common ancestor between homo sapiens and the chimpanzee, but it's just primates evolving into more primates. Where is the shift in kinds?
@@vidz4smrtkidz593 The challenge you replied to was to find a flaw. You seem to have just asked some questions here. I'll be happy to answer them all once we've concluded your attempt. I hope you're not just stalling.
Please present this flaw and how creationism fixes it. We've only had failure so far, but the challenge is always open if you can.
having math test tomorrow and should be studying yet here I am trying to find someone that can debunk evolution
@@IIrandhandleII look like you're getting me wrong here. I do believe in evolution. The reason why I'm searching for this is because I want to see how those religionists see evolution
I’m still trying to find someone prove it. 🤣
@@mukrizhsmukmuk9252
Read all of my comments friends depending on how obsessed you are with your belief in evolution you might be changing your belief, if you have any intelligence at all
@@rogerwoods5082 look like I have no intelligence at all. Thanks for you a super genius mind I can finally realize it.
dylan veteto stop looking! Its been proven countless times!
One word and it's not dinosaur.. hypertrichosis
Through comparative genomics it has been shown that yahweh used the McRib to create a companion for Ronald McDonald.
The team at discovery institute is expected to receive the Nobel prize for their decades long research.
So creationist scientists have had over 50 years to explain where all the water went to that "covered the mountains of the earth". Are they any closer?
They variously claim it went underground, was shot into space (and thus we have comets) or perhaps it has been absorbed into their cranial cavities and given them water on the brain?
Well, as reprisal there are also a bunch of videos around here on "debunking the bible"... Also, regarding kids turning atheist, therefore "bad people", there´s a video on atheists vs theists in US federal prisons... guess which group is overwhelmingly more represented.
Bible science 3
The Urim and Thummim were two objects mentioned in Numbers 27:21 and 1 Samuel 28:6 of the Hebrew Scriptures. They were apparently devices (perhaps in the form of flat stones) that the high priest consulted to determine the will of God. They might have worked something like a pair of dice or tea leaves.
Pretty ridiculous, just like the people who decided to crucify people who had different beliefs than them. Many reasons to live in 2021 than in 1947 B.C.
(Note: Please disregard the all caps. They were included in a previous YT post for emphasis. Thank you and Best wishes.)
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." (*The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80.) The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a purely arbitrary, subjective, materialistic ideology/worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic subjective ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.
NASA completed the dart mission today.
The asteroid was 6 thousand years old and created by Yaweh. The dating method used to determine the asteroids age was calculated by using the lineage from Adam and Eve. When science contradicts the Bible we should always choose the Bible because it is a perfect holy text.
then why do you believe in asteroids and space.
bible says we are encased in a crystal firmament that holds the waters
nasa is obviously a conspiracy against christianity, and the earth is flat.
rocket science isnt real
How Creationists Lie To Us - The Paluxy Hoax 'My grandfather was a very
good sculptor... During the 1930s and the Depression, Glen Rose
residents made money by distilling moonshine and selling dinosaur
fossils. Each fossil brought $15 to $30. When the supply ran low, George
Adams just carved more, some with human footprints thrown in.... My dad
[Weldon Eakin] and my grandfather decided one day - I don’t know if it
was to make money, or what - to start carving man tracks alongside the
dinosaur tracks. They poured acid to make the fossils look like aged
limestone. They showed one "all over town" until they heard that a
researcher from the Smithsonian Institution wanted to see the track.
That worried my grandfather because he didn’t want anybody ever passing
it off as real, so he and Daddy took it out and buried it.' Zana
Douglas, Granddaughter of George Adams, discoverer of the Paluxy River
dinosaur tracks, Glen Rose, Texas. Interviewed by Bud Kennedy, Fortworth
Star-Telegram
@ironpicket What's a "kind"? Is that an order? A family? A genus? A species?
only the bible knows
It’s species. You really that thick?
hell0 oh really. Well we have directly observe speciation in finches. So one finch kind can turn into another finch kind. This disproves creationism.
@@js83kaxhf
A kind can't be a species because we can observe new species split off its mother-species. And that would not be "producing after its own kind".
@@js83kaxhf No it's not.
"Ever notice how the earth is man sized"?
~John S
What are you doing, you're commenting over and over again..Evolution will never be true, it has never been, the evidence is so incredible weak. The examples people are using and taking have nothing to do with species jumping and their entire blueprint changing..Mutations may occur, but it cannot change the genome and epigenome ever..this will never happen and has never happened..
@@souldesire5932 does not change the genome? You mean like how a new virus variant comes along every year? A completely new genome per year. Try again.
This happens all the time and MUST happen. The genome cannot stay the same.
@@IIrandhandleII I don't think you understand what I mean..a viral genome and a human genome..big difference, and many variants can be manufactured..viruses mutate, cells don't create new information when they mutate, they degrade..that's been proven..evolution 100% isn't true
@@souldesire5932 for me you don’t understand either, just pure straw man at best
Apes have:
hair instead of fur
fingernails instead of claws
opposable thumbs
higher brain-to-body size ratio, high level of intelligence
prehensility (ability to grasp with fingers and/or toes)
padded digits with fingerprints
binocular vision i.e. both eyes focus on one object (depth perception)
reduced olfactory sense and dependent on vision more than smell
So you have evidence to support what elements the collapsed star produces? Yes or no. If so please present it.
Yes
It's easy to calculate if you have nuclear phisics notions.
Then present the evidence. Not a calculation.
@@brantgentry1463 and where do you think calculations come from? Physiscal laws and the equations that come with them dont come fron the air, they need an experimental background to be accepted.
You don't need an experiment to make a calculation. Anyway I asked for evidence from a star that it can fuse past iron. Since you don't have any please don't waste my time.
"Why have humans stopped evolving"
~John S
Evo's can't explain this. They claim that a tiny local tribe of perhaps a dozen humans evolved from apes to humans but that 8 billion humans simply stopped evolving.
(I say a "tiny local tribe" because every time the DNA mutates, the entire future "evolved" human lineage must now pass through that one individuals DNA mutation.)
We have not stopped evolving. No life form has. We are all transitional species. Skin colour is the most obvious example. There is an ethnic group in Thailand that swim a lot for hunting, they can focus their eyes underwater.
@@civilization57 They do not claim that. The rest of your sentence is just ridiculous.
@@kevinfletcher1999 OK, then, if all the races are still evolving, which human race is the most evolved? Darwin said it was the White race.
(Now watch this Evo run from his obvious conclusion...)
@@kevinfletcher1999 Actually, Evo's do claim that, they just haven't thought it through. Humans, according to Evo dogma, had to evolve through a tiny lineage since every time an actual new gene emerged (we have 22,000 genes), it required that all "lesser" human lineages dropped out. So the entire branch of "evolved" humans was reduced to that one new individual with the brand new gene.
But then, for some unexplainable reason, new genes suddenly stopped appearing.
Evolution never stands up under scrutiny.
To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis-that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
The important thing to know is that evolution has been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc. ie the exact bioogical classification hierarchy that all life sciences overwhelmingly agree on.
A "kind" is similar to what you'd call a "family".
Your challenge is to prove Evolution since the fossil record says NO and it can't be observed, reproduced in a lab or tested.
Remember, Evolution remains just a theory, despite what you say.
Show me an example of observable evolution?
Why are Christians arguing against the existence of Evolution? The theory does have flaws, but what in the Bible ACTUALLY contrasts with it?
@@denierdev9723 easily found on the internet.... many creationists say show me this or show me that... show yourself!!!!
@@IIrandhandleII evolution is a myth there’s no evidence it’s just a theory and it will remain just that a theory with no proof
2015
Homo naledi announced as a new species after the remains of at least 15 individuals were found in the Rising Star cave system in South Africa.
2015
Fossil jawbones discovered in the Afar Region of Ethiopia in 2011 were announced as belong to a new species Australopithecus deyiremeda. Many consider these part of a variable population of A. afarensis.
2016
Announcement that jawbone and teeth found in 2014 at Mata Menge in Flores are the ancestors, or early forms, of Homo floresiensis. The fosssils are about 700,000 years old.
2018
Scientists identify, for the first time, an ancient individual that was a first-generation hybrid. DNA studies showed that a 90,000-year-old bone fragment found in the Altai Mountains, Russia, came from a female who had a Neanderthal mother and Denisovan father.
A creationist is someone who sees a worm that lives in the eyes of kids in 3rd world countries and says "God did that, we are so in awe and grateful"
Creation science had become a passion for me almost from the day that I was introduced to it. ... [but eventually, after learning more about science] I talked to my pastor (a young-earther) about my new discoveries [regarding the errors in young-earth science]. He warned me as so many other "creationists" have, that to continue on this path was dangerous and would only lead to me falling away from the faith. At times, that notion seemed true! He asked me, "do you want to end up like "R" (a college student) who now denies the faith after he tried to pursue scientific understanding?" That question hit me hard and weighed heavy on my heart; however, I would soon discover that that line of reasoning was also imaginary. Since then, I have corresponded with several Christians who have traveled the same path as I have. One thing that is always agreed upon is the damage young-earth creationism can do to souls; how many believers they have seen fall away. We have been taught that the Bible demands a young earth interpretation and when the facts of nature become inescapable - our faith becomes shattered! My pastor was wrong, and the opposite was the case. If "R" had been offered an alternative from the beginning, he would never have experienced the turmoil he went through. When "R" could no longer deny that the universe was billions of years old, the only option left for him was to deny the Bible. How many others have been disheartened in a like manner?
This is all too common story of how young earth creationism poisons the well of faith.
Question: if the universe is only 13 billion years old, then how is it 93 billion light years across?
And why are the rings of Saturn disappearing so fast (Ring Rain) if our solar system is billions of years old?
And why is the moon so young, based on the steady decay of the lunar orbit?
And why is the atmosphere on Titan so young, based on the transformation of its hydrogen?
And why are there still comets, with a life span of 10,000 years, if the solar system is billions of years old?
And why does coal and diamonds still contain Carbon 14?
For that matter, how do you know how old the earth is? Other than the opinion of your masters?
BTW, the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is, just when God created man.
It is definitely interesting that main line protestants, Orthodox and Catholics don’t fall into the young earth creation trap. The Jews don’t either.
@@stephen5174 Honestly, I don't care what other people think. I just follow the science. So tell me, if the universe is 13 billion years old, how is it 93 billion light years across? And if the solar system is 4.5 billion years old, why are the rings of Saturn quickly disappearing and comets, with a life span of 1000's of years, still in existence?
@@civilization57 why is the universe is 13 billion years old and 96 billion light years across? Sounds like you have yourself a great homework question John. What does discovery institute or Kent hovind have to say about this, and what do Christian cosmologists have to say? An hour of research should suffice.
I can save you an hour, one side will say the universe is expanding(Hubble constant) citing red shift and cosmic microwave background radiation the other side will say the speed of light was much faster in the past citing no evidence just because... on one side is every phd accredited cosmologist with lifetimes of research and innumerable publications the other side having degrees in theology from diploma mills, if you want to be on the side of "all science is wrong" that's fine but your reasons are misguided. You should let science and reason guide your religious beliefs and not the other way around.
@@civilization57 Those all sound like questions you could find the answers to on your own. 👍
Why wait for somebody to answer your questions in a YT comment section? You could find the answers to those questions yourself in less than a few minutes.
You can't challenge a theory if you have no proper theory of your own.
Edit: Logical atheist why are you liking your own comments?
The Laws of science trump your theory.
Biogenesis for example- Life only comes from life.
Or Conservation of energy and matter. (Matter and energy are neither created or destroyed.)
Or 2nd Law of thermodynamics. (Order degrades to disorder.)
Or Laws of Causality.
Or HS math.
@@civilization57
Ok? What do any of those have to do with evolution???
@@cicadaboi101 lol.
@@civilization57 Dont understand evolution eh?
@I Forgive You not in science...
If humans were to lose all knowledge and all books ever written, physics mathematics, evolution, cosmology would all be rediscovered almost exactly as they are today while religions would never come back, new ones would be created with new names and new mythologies and new Kent hovinds, ken hamms, Joel Osteens, Ted haggards and Kenneth Copelands.
One who sent before will send again 🙂
@@theholiday3836 yes you wish don't you.
@@theholiday3836 I can’t believe we have so many of them in Africa every year…. Most of them are billionaires
In august 2019 scientists announced the discovery of a nearly intact full skull for the first time, dated to between 4.2 and 3.8 million years ago, it is the oldest known australopithecus species discovered to date. This specimen thus provides the first glimpse of the entire craniofacial morphology of the earliest known members of the genus Australopithecus
Still monkeys. Sorry, but monkeys are monkeys and humans are humans. After 4 million years, why isn't there a boat load of transitional fossils?
And if we've been evolving for the last 4 million years, why is there only one intelligent post ape species? Why are all human races exactly the same, none more evolved than another?
Sorry, friend, but your dog don't hunt.
@@civilization57 "Sorry, but monkeys are monkeys and humans are humans. "
No dipshit, humans ARE monkeys in the same way we are mammals and vertebrates. Grow the fuck up dipshit and stop lying.
@@garywalker447 Sorry, Evo, but homo sapiens are not monkeys. I thought they taught that in the Evo indoctrination camps. Still looking for that missing link!
Science rules!
And by your own admission, this skull is dated at 4 million years old. Even Evo's don't claim homo sapiens "evolved" until much, much later.
All you have is an old monkey skull.
@@civilization57 your ignorance of science is entertaining but also sad.. we will miss your young earth generation when it's being studied as ancient mythology.. boomer young earth creationist says Australopithecus is "just a funny monkey nothing more" lol.... Imagine if John S was on the team of paleoanthropologists that made the discovery...lolol.
Team finds an almost perfect cranial specimen of the earliest Australopithecus , John walks over steps on it kicks it and throws it in the trash, " just a funny monkey skull nothing to see here just evo indoctrination" ..LOLOLOL John should be kept away from all fossils and all lab equipment. Johns science lab is in the church using the word of Jesus the Bible and whatever discovery institute says.
why do I feel like a lot of Christians don’t preach what they teach?? Like are they actually following the Bible’s teachings?
Agreed. Biden and Pelosi are both Catholics but they support the murder of 63 million unborn babies. And homosexuality, which God calls an "abomination". So sad. This is why Biden has been refused communion mass.
@@civilization57 that’s terrible! But I’m sure there is some Christians still do what’s right
@@aprilfoozeler Yes, there are some but the numbers are dropping. Jesus said it would be this way before his return. He said, "As it was in the days of Noah so shall it be when the Son of Man returns." The Days of Noah were known for universal wickedness, as we are seeing today. Keep the faith!
@@civilization57 the days of Noah... you mean gilgamesh? You know that's a plagiarized story right?
@@civilization57 very funny some people think that's a true story.... actually the numbers of Christians are growing in third world countries.
Gods always behave exactly like the humans who create them. It's not god that was bloodthirsty in the old testament, it was humans.
There are two kinds of people-- those who believe in evolution and those who don't understand it.
Shut up you don’t understand evolution either why atheist always act like they are scientist you believe what another man tells you to believe I doubt you are out there in the fields studying evolution and no I’m not religious I don’t know enough about any religion or evolution to say I know with 100% what the truth is and neither do you
@@anthonymacias8185 I understand evolution. You don't. It is not an "atheist" theory. It makes no religious claims whatever. It merely describes how a physical process works just as every other scientific theory does.
@@MRobert2l tell me of one instance we have ever witnessed one kind changing into another where are all the fossils showing the transition from one kind into another you follow the religion of evolution blindly by faith and faith alone 😂🤣
@@anthonymacias8185 The fossil record shows transitions from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals, and from reptiles to dinosaurs to birds, all in appropriate earth layers in chronological order of development. Mammals can be seen branching out from primitive rodent-like forms to all other mammal species through time, and from lemurs to monkeys to apes to hominids to modern humans. These transitions are corroborated exactly by DNA relationships between different species. We can observe mutation and natural selection producing new species in living populations. The evidence is conclusive and not controversial in science. Only the ignorant deny it.
@@MRobert2l 😂🤣🤣no it does not
@Lichtspielhaus234 It is not a personal biased claim. It is fact.
There is no linkage to make false. You call it terrible, and that is a personal opinion. There is a fence and hopelessness, despair, no justice, no judgement but all is illusory, and "anyone can do whatever for what do I have to lose" is the side you are at.
what do you call that? good?
Believe what you want to believe, as for me I will believe in a personal God that gave himself for me and you.
He says: I will repay and will never leave you
You say: hopelessness and nothingness is my future!
Y’all just can’t wrap your heads around the FACT that it doesn’t require any “believing” to accept the testing of observational reality that returns repeating positive results. No faith required, or even invited.
Mr. Walker what are you talking about?
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
@@garywalker447 evolution is a fact and a theory at the same time...
@@garywalker447 you're misrepresenting the quote by Stephen j Gould... he's saying that evolution is absolutely true but we still don't understand everything about how it works. Every life scientist in academia and private research alike accept evolution. There's no controversy except from the religious young earth creationists and Islamists.
@@IIrandhandleII I am not misrepresenting Gould.
@@garywalker447 i would disagree with the statement that there is "intense debate", there's actually no debate between creationists/ evolutionists in the science community. It's been settled for a a couple hundred years however after dna sequencing came out it was done beyond a shadow of a doubt.
When a creationist conflates the Big Bang with Abiogenesis and with evolution then you are dealing with:
1) A liar who knows they are unrelated but desperately wants to make these sciences look like an anti God conspiracy.
2) An ignoramus who thinks they are all related because they all challenge his/ her notions of origins. This is a form of arrogance. Assuming that unrelated sciences exist only to challenge their asinine beliefs.
Young Earth Creationist logic:
My religious beliefs cannot be wrong therefore the scientific concensus is wrong.
They cherry pick science. They only accept it if it doesn't interfere with their agenda.
Barbara Forrest's expert witness report for the Dover trial: "Conclusions about the intelligent design creationist movement. My area of expertise is the nature and strategy of the intelligent design (ID) creationist movement. Based on the research I have done, I have concluded that its program is a fundamentally religious one. This conclusion is based primarily on ID leaders’ and their supporters’ views of it as stated in their own words. It is also based upon their total rejection of naturalism. Anti-naturalism is an integral part of ID. Its proponents reject not only philosophical naturalism (the metaphysical view that nothing exists beyond the natural world) but also the naturalistic methodology of science (the scientific procedural protocol of seeking only natural explanations of natural phenomena). ID’s rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."
Nice quote... But it's a strawman argument. She says that "the rejection if naturalism" is in part the bases for arguing for ID. I argue for ID all the time, and "rejecting naturalism" has nothing to do with my argument. I argue for ID because there is no viable process to account for the new genetic information (ATGC sequences), necessary to evolve life.
@@michaelreichwein3970 ID is pseudoscience.
It is nothing more than "Creation Science" relabeled.
Your assertion about "no viable process" is bullshit.
Most animals do not see in 3 colors. The gene that allows humans to see yellows, blues and reds is only found in one group of animals, primates of which we are a member species. Some 40 million years ago a gene duplication mutation occured doubling the OPN1MW gene sensitive to the yellow/green section of the light spectrum and a later mutation of this resulted in the OPN1LW gene that enables primates having this to see the color red. This mutation is unique to primates and as a primate, we too have this form of color vision.
@ ok ... Then are you saying that mutations are the process for evolution? And do you have any evidence that a mutation is the cause that allows primates to see color. I mean anything other than a hypothesis? Or speculation?
@@michaelreichwein3970 Then are you saying that mutations are the process for evolution?
And do you have any evidence that a mutation is the cause that allows primates to see color.
@ I think that you misunderstood what I had asked. I agree that the gene is in our genome. The question is how it got there. You seem to be arguing that if other species do not have this Gene. Then a mutation *must have caused* this Gene to come into existence. Your must-have is the hypothesis I am speaking of. Some of the smallest genes in your body, have about two thousand base pairs. And some genes with more than 2 million base pairs. Do you have any lab data that verifies your hypothesis?
John S has gone all quiet. He's been thoroughly exposed for his lie about having 4 degrees in sciences.
Your mindset fills me with rage-sadness.
Why?
@@Austin.davis1a Any demonstration of humanities slow decline into willful ignorance illicits the same response.
@@wolveraspeaks go see a therapist bruh, stop worrying so much about other people, it’ll do you no good
Yes, some video can do that. This video does not do that to me.
@@Austin.davis1a He doesn't have a rational answer.
IS ANYONE GOING TO TALK ABOUT HOW RECENT THESE COMMENTS ARE???!!!!!!!
Just you wait.
There is something very strange happening these days. I am not talking only about comments in this video but in general. I am not sure if this is due to the pandemic or geopolitical problem or China that is trying to push its own agenda on the rest of the world. Any way, it cause instability and people feel uneasy.
United Methodist Church
In 2008, the church’s highest legislative body passed a resolution saying that “science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with [the church’s] theology.” Moreover, the church states that “many apparent scientific references in [the] Bible … are intended to be metaphorical [and] were included to help understand the religious principles, but not to teach science.”
Is RUclips deleting your comments? Your older ones I cannot find, even ones I responded to
@@denierdev9723 Yes, comments are disappearing like Republicans when the lights come on.
@@garywalker447 Lol what?
@@denierdev9723 Gary walker dislikes Republicans as much as young earth creationists, i stick with science as i know many great people on both sides of the aisle, i don't generalize on politcs.
@@IIrandhandleII Ai. As a Liberal Republican who hates Young Earth Creationists, it confused me a bit.
Dissent with modification: how postcreationism’s claim of hyperrapid speciation opposes yet embraces evolutionary theory
Possibly the most striking departure between conventional evolutionary theory and this YEC origin of species is the pace at which they believe evolutionary mechanisms can create new species (Lightner et al. 2011). In contrast to the findings of mainstream biology, they propose that all extant land vertebrate species descended from a small population of precursors-the Ark kinds-by modification and accelerated speciation since Noah’s Flood (Duff 2016a) via standard evolutionary mechanisms (Duff 2016b), resulting in the formation of tens of thousands of new species in just a few thousand years. In their popular messaging, YECs point to observed speciation events reported by mainstream science as evidence of biological potential for rapid speciation, but have given comparatively little attention to advancing viable mechanisms for this form of natural selection.
Great Scott!
😂
"Gordon, it's so great to see you."
@Tucker Issac Shut the fuck up, bots.
The thing young earth creationists lack can be defined in one word: curiosity.
Not to mention intelligence, logic and common sense.
Creationist Timeline of the Mesozoic era:
Triassic Age: December 3000BC
Jurassic Age: April 3000BC
Cretaceous Age: September 3000 BC
Slow down, you're using some pretty gosh darn big words for them!
@@Awakeningspirit20 paleontology is just a theory!!!
Lmao scientest love big ass numbers they can't prove shit
@@bigbeans9356 Dr Lexus?
@@bigbeans9356 ooohh did mom leave her phone unlocked eh ? Are big numbers too confusing for ye
A creationist is someone who thinks Ray Comfort is smarter than Richard Dawkins or Ken Miller.
This is a good one.
The fact that we debate this, is, I believe, evidence that there is no creationist.
The fact that revelation is coming true and yall still yet to repent to me is proof that there is no evolution.
@@phoenixstormjr.1018 The fact that people's comebacks start with the beginning of what the initial person said is proof of evolution. It's also annoying as balls.
@@Biller2334 again ignoring whats happening around you. Just look at covid. Hit the most immoral nation on the planet the hardest. The US deserves it for what its done to all the billions of kids they aborted.
@@phoenixstormjr.1018 thinking disease plagues non believers of your religion is insanity.
@@IIrandhandleII what?
@megaead69 The distinction between the two is in its least as east and west. They will never be on the same place.
You cannot believe in God and at the same time Evolution. Because one is the denial of the other.
Or haven't you read genesis and the papers on evolution? How can you say you can accept both?
Well, first of all, creationists and scientists have a very different definition of evolution. So, if you go by the lexicon definition of evolution you can still believe in a god creating the earth.
Danilo Orbolato Actually one of the leading evolution biologists that fought for evolution to be proven to be a fact is also a Christian. He believes faith and science can coexist. Either way he has my respect. He leaves his religious beliefs at home and it doesn’t affect his work. And his efforts helped the science community. Some people can just compartmentalize I guess
@Kev Wagner
Evolution is by definition about nothing more than the change of existing life forms over long periods of time. The rise from non-organic material to the first primitive form of life is called abiogenesis.
>> Until somebody can prove that life can rise from nonliving material, the rest of the whole Evolution story is a fairytale.
I don't think that is correct. A Homo Erectus can still have evolved into a Homo Sapiens and be a perfect example for evolution without touching the subject of abiogenesis.
>> The scientific law of biogenesis has yet to be broken. Life comes from life every time.
If you agree with me that life has not always existed, then it must have begun at one point in time and wasn't there before. So, even if a god did collect a blob of mud and breathed life into it - then this form of life didn't come from life.
>> the whole Evolution story is a fairytale
The only difference between creation and abiogenesis is, that in the first case life begins with a random selection of minerals that become instantly and magically transformed into highly sophisticated organic material without any intermediate steps of development in between. While according to abiogenesis the most complex form of pre-life that does not yet quite have all the necessary qualities to be called alive passes the threshold to the very first primitive form of true life in one little step.
I will leave it to you to decide what sounds more likely. Especially because you have emphasized yourself that the law of biogenesis had yet to be broken.
@@stevencorey7623 Indeed, if you look around you will find a full array of ideas and theories that, as you said yourself: Believe evolution (of billions of years) and Creation (Let there be, and there was) can coexist.
I really don't think, based on what I have seen, that evolutionists give a slight hint of there being any creation. That would imply a creator, and they don't like that; Putting it mildly. Just as the ones that believe in a Personal God give any hint that things are the way they are because of time and chance. That does away with the need of a creator, and they don't like that either.
What is tried to be conveyed by these two sides are so opposite in every point being considered that one can't possibly try to "reconcile" the two.
It like arguing for the good of vaccines while disbelieving in medicine.
I think, rather than believing, a deep insight in both science and theology will locate them as two different disciplines in the same coherent universe
Problem is not many so called Christian have understood the symbolic nature of the bible
On the other hand some of the so called materialistic\deterministic scientists seem to believe that something comes to existence only when scientifically proven
Definition of ape for John S:
Apes (collectively Hominoidea /hɒmɪˈnɔɪdi.ə/) are a clade of Old World simians native to Africa and Southeast Asia, which together with its sister group Cercopithecidae form the catarrhine clade. Apes do not have tails due to a mutation of the TBXT gene.[2] In traditional and non-scientific use, the term "ape" can include tailless primates taxonomically considered Cercopithecidae (such as the Barbary ape and black ape), and is thus not equivalent to the scientific taxon Hominoidea. There are two extant branches of the superfamily Hominoidea: the gibbons, or lesser apes; and the hominids, or great apes.
We ARE apes. It's due to your misunderstanding of the English language that you think humans aren't apes and a theory=guess.
Humans being apes doesn't mean we evolved from apes it only means we are in the same taxonomic grouping. To scientists animals in the same taxonomic clade have a high probability of having a recent basal common ancestor. Study. You can do it.
It's strange how he doesn't know this stuff yet has 4 life science related degrees.
It's like he was bullshitting when he claimed that education.
Evos are funny. They think that by quoting Evo dogma they are somehow making a strong argument. I don't accept your Evo classification theory.
Answer me this, Evo, why are 99.999999% of all animals relatively dumb, while humans are so, so much smarter? Why are we the only ones with speech? With abstract thought? Why can humans build space shuttles, cell phones and nuclear reactors, while the next smartest animal can barely use a stick?
Science rules!!!
@@civilization57
Before we get to that, let's address your claims of 4 degrees in science vs your ludicrous claims re theories.
@@civilization57
Come on Johnny!
Explain your science ignorance vs your asserted science education
@@civilization57 answer me this gravo... why are 99.9999% of animals not as long necked like as a giraffe.... why are 99.9999% of animals not as massive as a blue whale.... why is the coleoptra the most biodiverse order of insects on the planet.... why is the cheetah the fastest, why does the alligator have such strong jaws...our brains are our superpower, this does not mean the universe was created for you any more than it was created for a beetle or even a daphnia pulex a crustacean which has 25% more base pairs than you do.
Ditching your myopic view of the universe is the first step in wisdom.
Did you know that dolphin's and bat's echo location physiology are almost identical?
So, did they have a common Designer or did dolphins evolve from bats?
Or this is an example of independent evolution where both groups have developed echo location as a solution to a similar problem
@@johnbrinsmead3316 Possible but highly, highly unlikely. Echo location requires the "evolution" of several complex physiological traits simultaneously in one individual. The chance of this happening once in one in a trillion. The chance of it happening twice is one in a trillion trillion. But Evo's care little about logic or odds.
BTW, the same argument can be made about animals that can see heat using the TRPA1 protein molecule, like the pit viper and the vampire bat. Did the bat evolve from the snake?
@@civilization57 LoL. Everything must happen simultaneously? Is that because you say so? Or because it suits your narative?
@@johnbrinsmead3316 Simple science, actually. Let's take the mammary system, for example. It requires at least six essential subsystems all working at once: Mammary glands to produce the milk, milk lobules to hold the milk, milk ducts to conduct the milk, nipples to release the milk, hormones to trigger milk production and a nervous system wired to time the release of the milk. If all six of those subsystems weren't working in the very first "evolved" individual, then they would harm that individual. For example, a female that lactates all the time without hormonal or nerve control would quickly die from nutritional depletion. Or a female that lactates without ducts or nipples to release the milk would rupture.
This is called irreducible complexity. Most of our systems fall into this category.
@@civilization57 You should check out the mammary system on a monotreme - it doesn't have all the components you've listed and yet it serves its purpose and in so doing paints a picture of how mammaries in early mammals may have worked.
It is almost adorable how many people think that some supernatural God, in whatever form (ID, creationism, “intelligent” entity, etc..) is actually competing with any real naturalistic explanation for the diversity or the origin of life or the universe for that matter.
As if something that does not even quality as real, is capable of providing an explanation. Given the demonstrable correlation with reality, the concept of the supernatural, let alone some specific deity, is if anything, in competition with unicorns and goblins.
They all have the same amount of evidence that would verify their existence and they have the same explanatory power. Absolutely nothing so far, with no reason to believe that this will ever change.
First, not all Intelligent design people are young earth creationist, they're different.
The Intelligent design establishes that something outside the universe created the universe which actually makes sense since it would break physics laws if that would be possible and we see that those laws by definition are universal. So something trascendent those laws created it, because anything inside the universe can't break those laws, and we know that the universe has a beginning by science. But there are also certains problems like we can assure what we know from the past is true but assuming all the laws of nature are static and have never changed. Also there's a lot of things like how math can be applicable to the understanding of the universe and how can exist some constants that are really tuned so humans can find patterns in nature.
Intelligent design also establishes that life cannot be created from inert matter, which is abiogenesis, we observe that all life in the world is created by some life form. In no time of science history was observed that life emerged from non-living matter. Even the Miller experiment failed. Even organic chemists can't build the simplest of the cells by themselves because of its complexity, they're not even close.
There are certain things like adaptation that bacteria, viruses, multicellular beings, etc do in order to survive, like becoming resistant to some antibiotics and in bigger individuals changing its color to not be hunted down by predators. Those things are facts. But getting complex features in a biological sense from random chance, they're not demostrated by science, it sounds like faith to me.
To be honest, I don't have enough faith to believe that science will someday be able to create life since they're not even close. I don't have enough faith to believe that everything comes to be like it is right now by random chance. Since I'm not a faith person, with the current knowledge, I chose to believe in God.
@@theistengineer2850 I'm sure a lot of science based conclusions sound like "faith", particularly when one has no grasp on science. That this is the case without you, you display here rather spectacularly with this array of distorted half truths and wild interpretations of facts.
@@derhafi Well if this is an array of distorted half truths and wild interpretation of facts? Can you explain which of what I mentioned are distorted half truths and wild interpretation of facts and why, please? Maybe I can learn something since you may know more than me. Thank you for answering and thank you in advance.
@@theistengineer2850 No problem:
“not all Intelligent design people are young earth creationist” I never claimed that they are.
“The Intelligent design establishes that something outside the universe created the universe” It claims this, it “establishes” nothing o that sort.
“So something transcendent those laws created it, because anything inside the universe can't break those laws “ Those laws are descriptive, they are not jurisdictional laws. Sounds like you are confusing the different nature of those completely different sets. You don’t get into trouble for braking a law of nature, if you can explain how you did it, this laws get adjusted and you get a Nobel price. Futher, what method do those ID people use to define something as “transcendent” aka beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience? Seems like they take something we don’t understand, or don’t understand aspects of it and instead of the scientific approach of admitting that “we don’t know yet but we are working on it” they draw a conclusion before asking any “how” questions and just call the unknown “transcendent” In other words: They are operating on a fallacy. Convenient for people who are pushing a religious agenda, yet deeply unscientific.
The ID argument is one big argument from ignorance wrapped in pseudoscience. Everything that's complicated or interesting about nature, has a very simple explanation: “ID did it." actual science has a few hallmarks two of which are: it allows us to make test/observable predictions and is has explanatory power. ID has none of those. That’s because ID is pseudoscientific bullshit, aimed at the scientific illiterate.
“we know that the universe has a beginning by science” We do know that matter and energy existed before the expansion and we do have models that allow an eternal cosmos. Penrose got a lot going on in that direction. There are many questions on what was before the expansion and what exact circumstances lead up to it. It is however universally agreed on that the expansion 13.8 billion years ago was not THE beginning and that before was absolutely nothing.
“Also there's a lot of things like how math can be applicable to the understanding of the universe and how can exist some constants that are really tuned so humans can find patterns in nature.” We are part of nature and we are good at pattern recognition. In no way does this suggest that those patterns are made for us, or that anything in nature was made with us in mind, or that anything in nature was “made” by some sort of intelligent agent. It’s like saying Water was made with fish in mind, ignoring all the other creatures in there and ignoring all the ice in space.
“Intelligent design also establishes that life cannot be created from inert matter, which is abiogenesis” ID again claims that, fails to present any sound argument, let alone empirical evidence to support this claim. If anything they go out of their way to ignore and distort all work done in that field. Not even mentioning that the standard model of physics alone is enough to render he ID idea of supernatural interference as the nonsense that it is. Again, they are not doing science, they are targeting the scientific illiterate to push a religious agenda.
“we observe that all life in the world is created by some life form” We know that there was a time without life, we know that now there is life, we know that the elements under the right conditions given enough time, applying only the laws of nature can form the building blocks of life. We know that complexity out of a set of simple rules, like the laws of nature occur all the time in nature. We know ALL the fundamental particles and forces of nature and we know their fundamental interactions, therefore we know that also that the idea of “the supernatural interfering with our reality” is bollocks. The conclusion ID supporter draw from that is: Some sort of “transcended” magic created life with us in mind” What a pile of shit.
“In no time of science history was observed that life emerged from non-living matter” The list of things observed about 3.5 billion years ago is very short.
“Even organic chemists can't build the simplest of the cells by themselves because of its complexity” “Cells” are not the form in which life emerged. The simplest form of life is a self-replicating molecule. A molecule that makes copies of itself is not magical or miraculous, it simply has a structure that attracts opposite-shaped molecules that in term attract their own mirror image molecular shapes so that the original structure is reproduced, even if only roughly. Also, we do not necessarily need to “built” something to understand it. We understand the inner workings of the sun but haven’t built one yet.
“There are certain things like adaptation that bacteria, viruses, multicellular beings, etc do in order to survive, like becoming resistant to some antibiotics and in bigger individuals changing its color to not be hunted down by predators. Those things are facts.” Yes, this facts are explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection. We got this covered.
“But getting complex features in a biological sense from random chance, they're not demostrated by science, it sounds like faith to me.” It sounds like faith to you because you are scientifically illiterate, and quite a bit ignorant on top.
You are literally describing all things explained by Evolution and then you go: ”How is that possible, sounds like faith” LOOK it up you moron! People worked their arses off to explain this in terms and processes which actually have a demonstrable correlation with reality. But you go: Nah, I’d rather stick with magic.”
“I don't have enough faith to believe that everything comes to be like it is right now by random chance.” Either the Laws of nature in general, nor natural selection in particular are equal to ”random chance”
“…with the current knowledge, I chose to believe in God.” Given the knowledge you presented here, that actually makes sense.
If that were true you could provide examples but you cant.
Show me factual examples of changing of species. Just curious.
@@thetruthhurts6652 Really? To prove that Black Holes exist do we need create one? LOL...oh...I forgot...magical beings created the universe😂😂😂😂😂.
@@manualpsi1235 I’m pretty sure we can see black holes? What I find magical is the idea that out of nothing... a Big Bang happened that created infinite stars, planets and everything in between.
@@thetruthhurts6652 do you think Big Bang came out of "nothing"???...how old are you? Five? Who told you that? I´ll give you a hint: there's no absolute emptiness in quantum mechanics... By the way, actually, you can't "see" a black hole.
@@manualpsi1235 you are wrong brainy. We know Black holes exist because we can see the matter they consume. As for the Big Bang, the universe grew from an almost infinitely small point to what it is today. What was outside the universe in its infinitely smallest point? Nothing, emptiness... like what’s in between your ears and inside your wallet.
I feel it's more likely that if this is of design then it was designed to evolve. That seems more able to coexist.
You're close. It is not designed to evolve, it is designed to adapt.
@@savageboosterstudios well it's 99% speculation. But I agree that there is more evidence for adaptation then actual evidence of evolution atm. It's a great theory . just needs more time. However in the meantime .. Everyone should not shout down other peoples ideological beliefs based on their own . coexist !!! Be kind. And don't assume you know everything! Not you savage chicken in particular just saying to any who may read this
@@shinyhaunter6019 evolution does not "need more time" dude... notice how every life scientist accepts it. There are more historians that deny the holocaust than biologists geneticists that deny evolution... you are told by your pastor or by Ken hamm that there's a controversy, there's none in the scientific community.
@@IIrandhandleII no man I'm not saying that Im a creationist per say . I am just saying evolutionary theory has a long way to go before it is solidified as fact. We have awesome amounts of data and it seems to be the right path forward but there is HUGE parts of the theory that we are assuming happen like species to species and how that happens. Adaptation is clear and we assume that over millions of years of adaptation that one species essentially becomes another... But more conclusive data and direct evidence is 100% needed . we cannnot afford to act so sure of something that takes that long to observe . it's a complex science though.
@GDDM sam ik what speciation is . but it is theoretical . that's why I said what I said buddy.
Spring is here and plants are growing. But Evo's fail to explain how the complex process of photosynthesis came about since it requires so many processes to have appeared all at once. A complex organelle called the chloroplast with its two membranes had to suddenly appear, complete with chlorophyll, the specialized pigment that absorbs energy from the sun. The chloroplast contains its own complex set of DNA and is able to harness sunlight to convert ADP to ATP and NADPH.
There is no way all these complex functions could suddenly all appear at once. Like claiming a Tasla evolved from a bicycle.
why are you obsessed with this ...........
bro... you have over 500 comments on this channel. plz go take care of your kids or talk to your partner... geez
More bullshit from Shithead. You are lying. Biologists do have an explanation for how photosynthesis evolved but you ignore all science that shows how fucking ignorant your creationism is, which frankly, is all of science.
@@garywalker447 Another appeal to authority without the science to back it up. Sorry, Evo, but incredible complexity just doesn't suddenly appear all at once.
Science Rules!
@@duckmouse-ts5yx I'm a retired school teacher and I hate it when websites like this disseminate lies. Forgive me for caring.
Baylor Christian University
In the Department of Biology, the science we teach and the science we research are all about understanding our world. I think you might even say that we have a Biblical mandate to understand God’s world. We are supposed to be stewards and care takers of the world that we inherited. We don’t own it and so we must understand it in order to preserve it and care for it. This goes for all of humanity as well as for the planet.
Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University (Waco, TX) teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.
OK, Adfasd, explain to me in scientific terms, how a new gene is formed. Explain how a gene with 20,000 DNA base pairs can perfectly align in one new individual to evolve, let's say, the mammary system. the odds of this happening is 16 the to 20,000 power. For example, the odds of just 10 base pairs aligning is one in 16 to the 10th power or one in 1.1 trillion. Now do 20,000 base pairs.
Without this explanation, evolution is utterly impossible. Which is why we never see it today among 1 million species and 8 billion humans.
No yelling. No cursing. No dodging. No ad hominem. No appeal to authority. Just science.
@@civilization57 I always find it amusing when creationists claim the odds don’t stack up in favour of evolution.
I’m pretty certain you have no clue how probability is calculated.
Can you explain the probability calculations you used to come to those exorbitant figures or are you just parroting creationist BS???
Let’s hear it
@@captaingaza2389 I'm sorry. I assumed Evo's understood math. My mistake.
So there are 4 DNA molecules available for the base pairs. Thus, each base pair has 16 options. 4x4. Thus two base pairs have 256 options: 16 to the 2nd power. And so on. And since a typical gene has 20,000 base pairs, that options are 16 to the 20,000 power, or infinite. Thus the odds of a gene self aligning with intelligent design are 1 in the infinite.
So, Evo, tell me how this happened with the 46,831 recognized human genes. Be very specific. (You can't and won't.)
@@civilization57 it’s ok and yes, you’re mistaken!
Creatards make these mistakes all the time because they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about!!
So what do they decide to do instead?
They LIE because that’s all they have left to defend their deluded nonsense.
Lots and lots of LIES!!!
@@captaingaza2389 Hahaha. Poor lying Evo can't answer my challenge. And can't do math. I'm still waiting for you to explain how a new gene forms. But all you got is insults and name calling.
Let me know when you want to talk science.
A young earth creationist is someone who thinks humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
There is a preponderance of evidence to prove evolution is real. From many different branches of science. You can't just say "defend it (evolution)" when it is an established fact through observation of the sciences that study it. Define creationism. Defend it. Tell me exactly how did God create Adam. I can lead you to the water but I can't make you drink. You have to do that. Christianity is also evolving through the centuries.
There is no evidence that Evolution is real. While there should be train car loads of transitional fossils, there are shoe boxes. Prove me wrong. Give me 10 examples of human transitional fossils. Can’t? How about one? And of the 8 billion humans on earth today, give me 10 examples of them evolving into other animals? Can’t? How about one? Or which race has evolved the most over the past 100,000 years?
Do you have any proof at all of Evolution? Or just conjecture?
God, from the superior dimension of spirit, made Adam as easily as you, from the 3rd dimension, can draw a 2 dimensional cat on a piece of paper.
If you think God isn’t real, then read Wikipedia’s study of 1000’s of Near Death Experiences where folks died, went to heaven, saw God and returned to tell the story.
@@civilization57 What a pile of lies! Tell me once and for all HOW DID GOD CREATE ADAM? For the record.
@@civilization57 Wow, so you believe in aliens, ghosts, spirits. But no actual scientific observation to back your insane claims. In Galileo's time people like you wanted to burn him at the stake for heresy. Instead you locked him up for the rest of his life. But you don't argue that the earth isn't the center of the universe or that the night sky isn't full of holes with heaven shining through today do you? You accept it. Evolution is not a theory, it's fact provable through an abundance of scientific fields.
@@Osckarre If you struggle with reading comprehension, let me know and I'll use smaller words.
If not, go to the Wikipedia page and read about all the first hand testimonies of people who saw God. Billions of people on earth believe in God, including your heroes Barrack and Michelle Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Pelosi. Are all these billions wrong and yet you are right? Did the entire universe come from nothing?
Also, try to answer my science challenges instead of ranting about 6 century old Catholic atrocities.
@@civilization57 Ok John time to move along! Troll someone else. You don't like my comment I get it. Thumbs down move along. :)
2:33 there's your answer right there
Wdym evolution is real
@@ghomclips7195 Well even creationists except that "its really hard to find scientific evidence that everything appeared in its present form as we see it". Contrary to evolution which is just standard year 9 science at this point
The challenge is a false choice. Creationists believe God created a garden planet, with a canopy of CO2 and water vapor that watered the earth. Massive green house. This is why there is oil underneath both the N. Pole and the Sahara. Then, after the flood, the climate changed. And we also believe God made each "kind" of animal (which Evo's now call "families") and that kinds multiplied into the many varieties (which Evo's call "species") that we see today. So, yes, the earth has changed within the parameters of God's creation.
@@civilization57 Can you elaborate on what you said about the Earth being a greenhouse which is why there's oil in the north pole and sahara
@@appleseedgames6934 lol
@atheistram Ath, you make a very good point. Anything that comes to light as a fact must be accepted by the scientific-minded person. There is no dogma or absolutes or beliefs in science. When one has an absolute or dogma to follow and is required to follow it regardless of the surrounding facts, it makes it kinda hard to accept anything that does not follow the dogma required. Therefore, religious absolutes leave people no where to go even when their beliefs are proven wrong.
You just described the religion of evolutionism/atheism. Only the creation model is scientific because it fits the scientific observable facts while evolutionism censors out and ignores the science that doesn't fit their beliefs.
In 1859, in his book Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin said: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, (why) do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”. This is from chapter six entitled Difficulties on the Theory. Scientists who believe evolution have been searching for transitional forms ever since but they have been not found.
The fossil record and lack of transitional fossils is such a big problem that many Evo's have ditched Darwin's gradual evolution theory and embraced Punctuated Equilibrium.
You are correct, no fossils have been found since 1859...
@@IIrandhandleII Actually, the millions of fossils that have been found show NO transitional species. That is a HUGE problem for your hoax. And we see the same today with extant species... no transitions happening. Just negative mutations.
Sorry, Evo, but you lose again!
@@civilization57 What exactly were you expecting?
To find a fossil of a fish that died while transforming in an amphibian?
@@civilization57
They are ALL translational
Creationists like yourself tell LIES to convince others that if evolution is false, your god is true
It doesn’t
FAIL!!!
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 i mean technically that is what we find...
@Rozlelous1165 its called adaptation not Evolution
Florence Manji what
Adaptation happens by a change in the genome through mutations . And the definition of evolution is mutations over time.
are u still alive
Quintessential creationist quote:
"We should only teach science, not theory"
"My law beats your theory"
"Evolution will never be more than just a theory"
~John S
(This quote is the epitome of scientific illiteracy and you will hear it ad nauseum from young earth creationists who have never understood how science works nor do they care to understand, conflating the colloquial definitionof theory with the scientific one. SMH a degree in any science could never be attained with this level of deficiency.)
Unless you buy it from a degree mill like the conman Kent Hovind.
@@rehaan6428 haha 300 bucks phd in the mail.
What law is he talking about in the quote?
Morality & Spiritual things are two different things............also atheist are not amoral people
Most atheists I know are more Christ-like than Christians.
@@zizimugen4470 the difference is a true Christian will repent when they’ve made a mistake and remain in Christ. If they’re not living a life that resembles Christ then they’re not Christian. There will be a lot of ‘good’ people in hell unfortunately.
@@johnnydough8841 More atheists I know have confronted someone they've wronged to make amends, than christians I know who will try to make amends at their bedsides, talking to the air of the room miles away from the person they've wronged.
The belief in purely materialistic Darwinian Evolution leads one to believe, albeit falsely, that there is no Free Will. And if there is no Free Will, then there is no Right and Wrong and no Moral Law, which is completely contrary to everything that is practiced and observed in nature, humanity, and the cosmos regarding cause and effect.
@@moses777exodus There is free will
John S is still here 8 months later and could have been learning biology the entire time... instead spouts the latest Kent hovind and ken ham literature. PHD Biologists that accept young earth creationism in the entire world? 0 ZERO
Modern science was founded by young earth creationists including Isaac Newton and inventors of modern inventions, including the MRI.
Also, evolutionists are not real scientists because they do not believe that anything can be proven true. Evolutionists believe that anything is possible and nothing is impossible, which is a belief in magic.
John S has become silent and absent.
Apparently the better part of valour is retreat.
Answers in genesis had not published any new articles.
The lie of creationism/ID cannot be defended or asserted without lying.
@Patiently waiting for Jesus our lord and saviour. Simple, no creationist can assert magical creation without lying about the evidence, and if you have to lie to defend your truth, you are NOT defending truth.
@Patiently waiting for Jesus our lord and saviour. We have testable physical evidence. You have fairy tales that contradict each other. We win.
You cannot show any real evidence for genesis and it is clearly a copy of earlier pagan creation stories.
You cannot show any real evidence for 'Noah's Flood", again,clearly a copy of earlier pagan creation stories.
We have the fossils that show human evolution.
We have the measurements that are evidence for the Big Bang and a 4.54 billion year old Earth.
Even your moniker is pathetic. According to your bible, Jesus said he would be back before all his disciples died. That would be about 100 CE. He ain't coming back. YOU have been lied to.
@Patiently waiting for Jesus our lord and saviour. lol there is evidence of a great flood
This is a battle between the educated and the uneducated. You can guess who is on which side.
adfasd for real holy shit ur speaking fax
No, it's simply one religion battling another religion, the difference is the evolution people don't consider their religion a religion, but that's exactly what it is when you see all the BS that is passing for "science" and how they ignore true science with such bias, no different than a religious nut. You're problem is you're confusing "education" with "indoctrination under the guise of education"....big damn difference!
RedIceBlueFire so science is a religion? Well shit music must be too.
@@redicebluefire2552 Nope. Science is not a religion. Religions rely on faith, science has evidence. Religion produces nothing, Science produces technology.
@@walkergarya You don't read very well do you sir! I never said science is a religion, show me where I said that or even implied it please? Don't put words in my mouth so you can make a staw-man argument. I said evolution believers are just like religious believers because yes, they are going by faith, since the science demonstrating the "theory" of evolution is extremely flawed to say the least. Anyone who actually does real science would not believe in evolution any more than a far out theory at best. The problem is so many people like you keep hearing these things over and over again by the mainstream as fact, so you blindly believe it without actually doing honest research into the real science of the matter, and for that reason you are no different than a religious person because you blindly believe this on faith...faith that what the establishment is spoon feeding you is true. That's your religion. If I'm wrong, than I challenge you to prove this stupid theory to me with scientific facts.
By the way, your second statement is also very naive. Science does not always produce technology, do I really need to give you examples? And to say Religion produces nothing is just stupid. Religion produces faith, which can have all kinds of positive affects on humanity that is too numerous to list, from healing to moral values which civilization was founded on. Don't tell me, you're an atheist, right? Well there were no such thing as atheists thousands of years ago when great civilizations where being created all over the world.
Walkergaya again do you have evidence of this occuring in reality?
1. ERV markers are non coding sequences of DNA inserted into the genome of host organisms by viruses. These markers are inserted at random and are used by the virus to take over the cell and produce more viruses. Humans and chimps share 12 ERV markes that are in the same locations in both genomes and have the same content. The ONLY feasible way for this to happen is for our species to have a common ancestor that also had these 12 ERV markers.
2. Almost all mammals produce the Vitamin C they require. Humans have the gene to produce Vitamin C but there is a single bit error in the gene that renders it useless. The only other mammals that have this error are the members of the primate sub-order Haplorhini; Tarsiers, New World Monkeys (Platyrrhini) and Old World Monkeys (Catarrhini) including the family Hominidae (humans and other apes).
3. Most animals do not see in 3 colors. The gene that allows humans to see yellows, blues and reds is only found in one group of animals, primates of which we are a member species. Some 40 million years ago a gene duplication mutation occured doubling the OPN1MW gene sensitive to the yellow/green section of the light spectrum and a later mutation of this resulted in the OPN1LW gene that enables primates having this to see the color red. This mutation is unique to primates and as a primate, we too have this form of color vision.
4.Valid Scientific Theories can be used to make predictions. Darwin noted that the bones in the wings of birds resembled the fused finger bones of other animals so he predicted that fossil bird would be found with unfused finger bones. Less than 5 years later, archaeopteryx was found with feathers, a long bony tail like a dinosaur, teeth and unfused finger bones in the wing.
5. Dr Neil Shubin wanted to find the first fish that could crawl up onto land. Eusthenopteron of 385 million years ago was similar to the later Acanthostega of 365 million years ago but there was too much difference for there not to be an intermediate species so he looked for exposed sedimentary rock of the right type and age and found this in the Canadian Arctic on Ellesmere Island and found the intermediate species that was then named Tiktaalik.
6.The human and chimp genomes have been compared and the two are over 98% the same. More over, where there are differences the are those genes that enable brain development, different hair growth, language development.
7. The fact that new medicines have been tested on animals for side effects and efficacy shows that the underlying biological systems are biologically similar and therefore related however distantly.
8. Embryology hints at the Evolutionary history of species with snakes developing limb buds in the early stages of development that then get reabsorbed. We have the fossils of primitive snake that have vestigial legs that extend beyond the body of the snake and it is a regular "birth defect" in snakes to have non functioning legs.
9 Whales evolved over the past 55 million years from land animals. This is shown through the fossil record that start with Pakicetus that was identified as the precursor to the whale lineage by the presence of an S shaped bone in the skull of Pakicetus that is unique to whales as well as an unusual double tendon arrangement on the limbs of Pakicetus and is still found in the flippers of modern whales. Neither of these features are found in any other animals. It is also noted that by comparing the genomes of many species, the closest living relative of whales is the hippo, another aquatic mammal.
10.Genomes contain non functioning genes called pseudogenes. Mammals, including humans have the gene to produce egg yolk due to the fact that we evolved from egg laying ancestors some 100 million years ago.
11. Birds are descended from and are a living branch of dinosaurs. We have found many dinosaur fossils with the imprints of feathers preserved, even dinos that were too heavy to ever fly. Even the velociraptor of "Jurassic Park" fame has been shown to have the anchor points on the bone of its fore limbs of feathers indistinguishable from the same bumps found in eagles or geese. This case is further reinforced by the fact that chickens still have the DNA for a long bony tail like a dinosaur.
12. Characteristics of animals and plants are strictly divided by phylogeny. Only birds have gullets, feathers and beaks, features that have all been identified in dinosaurs. Only mammals have lactation glands and hair. Only reptiles and snakes of land animals are cold blooded.
13. The creationist's cry that there are no transitional species found is an outright lie.
@Jan Krissian SAUL Science is not shit, that would be religion.
@Jan Krissian SAUL good luck reading what he explained to you...but you don't care.
"only" no such thing as absolutes ... where's science now?
@UNKNOWN My points are not shit, that would be creationism.
Young earth creationists believe their god is not capable of producing life from natural processes, their god operates on the terms that they themselves have set, and what is this process that young earth creationists have submitted?... magic.
We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG)n-(CCCTAA)m3'. Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
Chromosomes can fuse or split, both of these have been observed in nature. What is important is the genetics that is in the chromosomes, NOT how many chromosomes there are.
@@garywalker447 true but this is evidence that fusion took place within our hominid ancestor after our split with the greater apes.
@@IIrandhandleII Yup. Agreed.
The American educational system, 27th in the world
If you exclude flat earthers and young earthers we would score higher ;)
@@IIrandhandleII unfortunately that would exclude 30% of the US population.
@@paulcolbourne5555 that 30% don't count.
@@IIrandhandleII I am assuming you are an American . With an American education. Do you understand how statistics work? Do even understand simple mathematics? 30% means every 3rd person in your country believes Adam and Eve are historical figures. If we discount them and say we would score extremely stupid..
@@paulcolbourne5555 yes actually i did my undergrad in mathematics and actuarial science. Im extremely familiar with statistics.
I was making a light hearted joke but it seems you're very eager to argue with somebody. Yes, in America we have a large evangelical population that believes the earth is 6000 years old. Yes they are incredibly scientifically ignorant however you'll likely find this population is over the age of 50 and there aren't many young people that hold these insane young earth beliefs. Most of these people are from the Bible belt.
hmmmm.....ok.....well.....
Question for the Evo's who say humans are still evolving: Which race is the most evolved? Darwin said evolution explains why some races are more evolved. OK, which one?
No Johnny Shithead, there are no "human races". The differences between us is literally only skin deep and has NO meaningful impact on our health, intelligence or anything else. Darker skinned people are better for not getting sun burned (and skin cancer) from tropical sun, but if they move to northern latitudes they have a problem with Vitamin D deficiency. Those of us with pale skin have less of an issue with Vitamin D deficiency but if we move to the tropics, have problems with too much Vitamin D and Sunburn and therefor, skin cancer, but there is no population that is "more evolved" than any other because we all came from a single population in Northern Africa.
@@garywalker447 haha. So all this talk about racial equality is what... nonsense?
Evo's prove their ignorance every time they open their mouths.
John S,
Did you go to school to learn how to be an obtuse ass, or are you self taught? Do you really think you are representing the spirit of the Messiah by being so militant and pushy? Have you never heard about flies and honey?
Darwin was wrong in his thinking in this particular subject. Evolution doesn’t “advance” a species, except through the filter of natural, sexual and other selection pressures which provides them a better fitness to reproduce. From an evolutionary point of view all species are at the pinnacle of fitness.
@@theropod0001 Ad hominin attacks are a failed debate technique, the last resort of the desperate. Either debate with intelligence or not at all.
Birds such as ostriches, emus and penguins are unable to fly. However, this hasn't always been the case - each of these flightless birds has ancestors who easily flew. Over many generations, ostriches and emus evolved to have larger bodies and feet made for running on land, which left them without the ability (or need) to fly. The same goes for penguins, who traded typical wings for swim-friendly flippers over many thousands of generations.
Nice Evo dogma but bad science. All those are still birds in the Avian family. They did not "evolve" but, if anything, they "devolved" by losing the ability to fly.
But the truth is that they are just varieties of the bird genome. Like how tiny dogs are not "evolved" dogs but just varieties of the canine family.
Evo's frequently mistake genetic variation leading to adaption with "Evolution". Common mistake.
@@civilization57 lol, the fossils tell otherwise... sorry John. Your Noah's ark fairy tale isn't taken seriously anymore.
@@civilization57 they devolved similar to how whales lost their hind limbs?
@@civilization57 an organism cannot "devolve" organisms evolve and adapt to suit their environments
@@luisapisacar9252 just more evidence as to how religious evangelicsls that don't accept evolution because they don't understand it. He asked me a few weeks ago " why have humans stopped evolving".
Evo's point to the phylogenetic tree of life as if it is some sacred scroll of truth. It is only an organization of existing kinds of living organisms ordered by genetic similarity. So what? I could do the same with cars, machines, boats, computers, weapons, software or art. It doesn't mean one evolved from the other but only that they share similar designs.
No you cannot. The tree of life shows how life developed over hundreds of millions of years. While we do not have a perfect understanding of how all these species developed from earlier species, we know enough to KNOW that we are on the right path to understanding our heritage. Our cars can and do "steal ideas" from each other, parts from a Audi could be made to fit a Toyota. You cannot take part of a bird and graft it onto a turtle and expect good results.
Your lies are absurd and your level of understanding biology is pathetic.
Do your fellow creatards a favor and shut the fuck up.
@@garywalker447 The 'Tree of Life" (a phrase taken from Genesis- LOL) is nothing more than an organizational flow chart of existing species. It means nothing. Look at the middle of your flow chart- no labels cause it is all imagination. Disagree? Then tell me man's direct predecessor was. You can't cause you don't know.
@@civilization57 Homo hidelburgensis, then Homo erectus.
Fuck your ignorance Shithead.
@@garywalker447hahahahahahaha 😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🖕🖕🖕🖕
It is much much deeper than, "Things look similar." You really think that the hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers are just saying that? For God's sake get an education. There is too much evidence to deny.
We have species alive today that didn't exist back in time, how did this happen?
Where did these new species that didn't coexist with older species come from? 🤔
If Americans came from Europe why are there still Europeans 😆
If you disprove evolution special creation is the only other option. Because everything around us is still here lady.
False.
Evolution is an explanation of how already existing populations change over time. Existing populations cannot change over time, until the population exists.
Creation of life by a god is one proposed explanation of how life began to exist, evolution is not an explanation of how life began to exist.
If the explanation of illness being caused by germs was disproved tomorrow, that would prove that we don't know how illnesses occur. It would not prove evil sorcerers casting spells as the explanation.
If we disprove the explanation of gravity causing the observed attraction and acceleration of mass, what does that prove?
What about atomic theory?
Go ahead and disprove evolution
@@theyeticlutch3486 he's working on it lol
@Jake Lloyd there wasn't a first human
@Jake Lloyd did you read my comment, how is that relevant?
Many people will accept scientific discoveries until it contradicts their beliefs.
Double standards.
Too many people ....
I trust science
@Don Ghiata Nope. Biological Evolution is an observed fact and the Theory of Evolution is our explanation of that fact. Further, the Scientific Theory of Evolution is the foundation of all modern biology so yes, Biological Evolution is very much science.
walkergarya i was bout to say
Scientists conform their beliefs to the evidence, religious fundamentalists do the reverse.
I'd say you know very little or nothing about genetics eatmylogic.
Everything I've posted on genetics is accepted by every scientific institution on earth. Creationists don't even bother to learn anything about genetics, they think genes are as vague and inexplicable as Holy Writ.
So you believe that mixing and duplicating the dna code that is already in a genome creates new code?
@@brantgentry1463 Switching around and duplicating DNA changes the traits expressed, in the same way that switching the letters in a sentence around changes the meaning of the sentence-- you don't have to add new letters to the alphabet to get "new information." That's not my "belief"-- that's mainstream science and you should know it.
@@brantgentry1463 Mixing and duplicating the letters of the alphabet creates new "code"-- you don't have to add new letters to the alphabet to get a new message.
Yes, but making new words requires someone to write them. I hope your not saying dna/rna is sentient.
Bible science 1
Numbers 5:11-31 describes a practice of making a wife who has been accused of adultery drink a mixture of water and dust from the floor of the Tabernacle in order to prove her guilt or innocence.
How to determine if the man has been adulterous i do not know.
Make no mistake if this was in any other book or would be described as magic or witchcraft however since it is contained in the kjv Bible young earth creationists will defend this as a perfectly viable way to determine if your wife cheated on you in this time period.
As a pure Christian, I can confirm. This is how I found out my wife cheating.
@@mukrizhsmukmuk9252 lolololololol
It is a waste of time to try to debate creationists. They've already made up their minds and either have no understanding of scientific principles at all, or misconstrue them to suit their beliefs. I am aggravated that this is even a debate.
Both bats and whales use the exact same physiology for echolocation.
Did bats evolves from whales?
Same Creator, not the same ancestor.
ahh the beauty of convergent evolution, just like the flying fish, squirrels, lizrards have the makings of wings....arriving at the same tricks through different paths, they did not evolve from each other but they share a common ancestor, all living organisms do. I encourage you to persist in your studies you will eventually get there but it takes some study. Science rules!!
What does Kent hovind tell you to think about the vestigial hind limbs of cetaceans?
@@IIrandhandleII You ran away from my challenge. Did whales inherit echolocation from bats or bats from whales? Or are you say all animals have the echolocation gene? Come on, Asshat, don't run from my challenges with your gibberish. Use science to defend your dogma.
@@civilization57
---Did whales inherit echolocation from bats or bats from whales?
NEITHER Learn Biology!!!!
Convergent evolution is when different organisms independently evolve similar traits.
For example, sharks and dolphins look relatively similar despite being entirely unrelated. Sharks are egg-laying fish with the deadly ability to sniff out blood in the water, while dolphins are curious mammals that navigate by making clicking sounds and listening for their echoes. Those differences aren't too surprising, considering that the duo's last common ancestor swam the seas some 290 million years ago.
From that ancient common ancestor, one lineage struck out on land and evolved into mammals, including the wolf-like Pakicetus, which would later return to the water and evolve into whales and dolphins. Another lineage stayed put in the ocean, undergoing tweaks to become the modern shark. Yet despite their winding paths, both animals ended up in similar evolutionary niches: streamlined swimmers with smooth skin and water-slicing fins ideal for chasing down prey.
Each of Earth's habitats presents its own challenges. Sometimes, different species develop the same solution to the same problem. Biologists call this process - when two organisms share characteristics that they didn't jointly inherit from a common ancestor - convergent evolution.
@@civilization57 step 1 learn the difference between convergent and divergent evolution.
Today, on my 200+ acre ranch, I'm enjoying all the beauty of spring: bird song, flowers growing, trees budding out. My irrigation heads spread the miracle of water to my thirsty pasture. I saw a beautiful butterfly this morning. I praise God for the beauty of his creation!
This morning as i surfed some waves on my beach front property valued at over 2.1 million dollars i noticed many beautiful bikini clad virgins that God had delivered to me in the form of payment for my faithfulness to Yahweh. Yahweh's beauty is astounding and i give thanks.
Numbers 31:17-18
King James Version
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
@@IIrandhandleII Notice how Asshat responds with a lie to my truth. That is so typical of Evo's.
@@civilization57 just posting some beautiful bible verses. Don't call them lies blasphemer.
You are very lucky to have 200+ acres. It is good to redeem grace to God. Unfortunately, it is not the current subject.
@@cyberjfh yahweh blessed me with a beach front property in Southern California. Thank you yahweh!
Creationism is a religion on its own.
Creationism and Evolution are both religious claims taken by faith. Neither can be tested, observed or reproduced. Creation, however, doesn't violate any laws of science like Evolution does. Like biogenesis.
@@civilization57 Evolution can be observed. For example the birds and tortoises on Galapaga Islands - same species have differend bodies on different islands to adjust to different conditions there. They evolved to survive and prosper....Dogs evolved from wolves. Dogs unlike wolves have enzymes in their digestive system thanks to which they can well digest starch, that's because of their domestication through living with people and eating their leftovers....Foxes's bodies change thanks to domestication. The longer the foxes are exposed to people (living with them, being fed by them) their offspring look different - their ears are positioned lower and lower on their head...People of nations who for thousands of years have been eating diary, have enzymes in their digestive system to be able to process lactose even in their adulthood...etc.
@@slouberiee Galapagos Islands is a great example of where we disagree. While Darwin's famous finches developed different characteristics (beaks for example) they all remained finches. Within DNA is room for adaption and expression of different characteristics (like the beagle vs the Great Dane), but they are still all dogs. (Or the Pygmy human vs the Samoan... still humans even though they look much different.) This is what Creationists call "evolution" with a lower case "e", vs "Evolution, which is the creation of new "kinds" of animals. The Bible says God created "kinds" of animals. From there, they can "evolve" into subkinds (what you call "species": Like how canines "evolved" into beagles and Great Danes.)
Your challenge is to prove the emergence of new kinds of animals, like humans. Focus there to convince me. Give me your best fossil example of the missing link.
@@civilization57 Galapagos Islands is a great example of where we disagree.
While Darwin's famous finches developed different characteristics (beaks for example) they all remained finches.
Within DNA is room for adaption and expression of different characteristics (like the beagle vs the Great Dane), but they are still all dogs. (Or the Pygmy human vs the Samoan... still humans even though they look much different.)
This is what Creationists call "evolution" with a lower case "e", vs "Evolution, which is the creation of new "kinds" of animals. The Bible says God created "kinds" of animals. From there, they can "evolve" into subkinds (what you call "species": Like how canines "evolved" into beagles and Great Danes.)
Your challenge is to prove the emergence of new kinds of animals, like humans. Focus there to convince me. Give me your best fossil example of the missing link.
@@garywalker447 Evos are so hard to debate because they don't know what the hell they are talking about. Pygmies vs Samoans is not Evolution. And Beagles vs Great Danes is not Evolution. Humans are humans and dogs are dogs. Your burden of proof is to provide evidence of an ape becoming a human. Which you can't. In fact, can you provide evidence of any kind of an animal evolving into another kind of animal? (Ranting and insults does not equal evidence.) Or even better, among the 8 billion humans alive today, give me evidence of continuing human evolution. (You can't and won't. You'll just rant some more.)
Ever notice how earth's natural functions, with rare exceptions, are all man size? Ocean waves to play in. Breezes to cool us down and water the earth. Trees just big enough to build our houses. Rivers to carry our boats. Mountains big enough to hold glaciers to provide summer water. Temperatures generally not too hot or too cold to kill. Nature was designed by our Creator for the comfort and care of man!
Confirmation bias much?
God designed bananas and corn that perfectly fit in our hand.
God designed volcanos to keep us warm, earthquakes to give us that much needed massage our body needs after work. Ice ages to cool us down after a long asteroid induced mass extinction.
Rattlesnakes and trex for our children to keep as pets, opium plants to heal our pain, trees to make Bibles and Qurans.
Arsenic, Aids and anthrax to sprinkle on our cereal in the morning. Marijuana for us to smoke right John?
Obsidian for homo habilis to make tools with, deers and mammoth pelts to keep us warm, sticks to spindle and make fire.
@@garywalker447 The entire world supports design. Evo's are just too ignorant to see it.
@@IIrandhandleII Correct. Everything is man size.
Divinely inspired quotes:
"How old are you seriously, I used to teach middle school and you remind me of my learning disabled students."
~John S.
A man of passion, a man of young earth wisdom.
Quoting an insult. Nice one.
That guy sounds like an intellectually crippled believer! Teaching religion as if it were something real should be outlawed, and the perpetrators harshly punished by torture!
Imagine arguing for weeks with a dude who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old.
@@denierdev9723 yep guilty as charged. He now believes in homonid fossils and is questioning his young earth paradigm, my work is done here.
You're leading the Human Genome Project!?
At some time after the separation of the human and chimpanzee lineages, two ancestral chromosomes, #12 and #13 in the chimpanzee, fused end-to-end to form a single chromosome, #2, in humans. Chimpanzee chromosome 13 forms the short arm (2p) and part of the long arm (2q) of human chromosome 2, while chimpanzee chromosome 12 forms most of the long arm (2q) of chromosome 2.
The primary evidence for this fusion is the comparative genetic content of these chromosomes. That is, most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 13 are found in human 2p, and most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 12 are in human 2q. The chromatin binding patterns line up, the sequence analysis confirms, and there have been some lovely FISH studies that show the correspondence.
What has since been done is that a prediction was made that there ought to be fragments of telomeres (the end caps of chromosomes) in the middle of chromosome 2, at the fusion site. Which has been examined. And the prediction has been confirmed.
Too many problems with that theory.
One, chromosome fusion results in massive mutation and death. Imagine two trains crashing together.
Two, telemeres prevent fusion, like trying to connect two bolts together at the head.
Three, while there are many similar genes between chimps and man (and pigs and man...) there are also genes appearing in different places, which wouldn't happen if the #12 and #13 genes simply fused.
Four, even if a embryo experienced this fusion and went from being a 48 chromosome ape to a 46 chromosome human, and managed to survive, who would this first 46 chromosome human mate with, being the first and only one?
@@civilization57 thank u sir, for providing scientific reasoning and giving a kind but fitting reply to evolutionist in their own scientific jargons,hotch-potch theory...
thank u for reinstating my faith in god..🙏🙏
@@civilization57 Exactly.
@@civilization57 you seriously trying to prove a "theory" that has been proven practically with pixels... go and praise your god, religious douchebag.
@@civilization57 Chromosome fusion does not in all cases cause mutation and death. There are tons of people with a Robertsonian translocation around the Earth.
Young earth creationist quote of the day:
"An evolutionist is someone who believes the border is secure."
~John S
This is true. Evo's believe whatever their liberal masters tell them to believe. They are truly that gullible.
They also believe men can have babies, that gender isn't determined by DNA but by how you feel in the morning, and that CO2 is destroying the earth.
Don't be a gullible Evo like Asshat.
@@civilization57 gender is not determined by dna, it is determined by chromosomes. I am a so called evolutionist and have never seen a man have a baby nor have I have seen a woman impregnated by a spiritual entity. They are both equally unlikely but you are more than welcome to argue for them. You say all evos are liberals that's funny because I know many biologists who aren't liberals.
@@IIrandhandleII
John S lacks education and critical thinking. He genuinely thinks evolution is some sort of liberal plot and aligns it with climate science, gender issues, immigration issues and probably gun control issues. This is not the sort of thinking one can aspire to nor admire.
@@ozowen5961 welcome to the Bible belt.
@@civilization57 This is true.
Evo's believe whatever their liberal masters tell them to believe.
They are truly that gullible.
They also believe men can have babies,
that gender isn't determined by DNA but by how you feel in the morning,
and that CO2 is destroying the earth.
Don't be a gullible Evo like Asshat.
John S comes in, makes a stupid comment and then leaves. He seems to think mindless comments are "schooling" folks.
His best follow up argument is claiming he has 4 college degrees.
Yet, no sign of his having any education at all.
Degree can be from any community College or diploma mill. Ask Kent hovind.
@@IIrandhandleII
I don't know about your community college system.
Ours must meet standards and be govt accredited or is not allowed to issue even a certificate.
None issue degrees.
We have a diploma mill, it cannot issue any of its qualifications in Australia. It is used by creationists.
@@ozowen5961 look up liberty university. That's where a guy named Kent hovind got his "phd". He's one of the leaders of the yec group. They are ultraconservative Bible literalists and fundamentalists. Basically like the morality police in Iran but Bible instead of Quran. Unironically Kent has domestic abuse charges and has been to prison for tax structuring, but yeah that's where these types get their degrees. Even Christian colleges in the usa teach biological evolution...it's the private religious diploma mills that grant these so called "degrees".
'Creation science' - a great example of an oxymoron
"Richard Thompson" a great example of a moron , evolution is a freemasonic grift
Says a Libs who believes men can have babies, that CO2 is destroying the planet, and that unborn babies aren't human beings until they breath air.
Only for someone that refuses to acknowledge the possibility of a Supreme Being.
@@craigwinn6326 what’s funny is that many “scientific theories” are commonly passed off as fact when they don’t even hold up to the scrutiny of scientific method which many modern “scientists” are advocating to get rid of 😅
Ha ha it's not an oxy moron they don't have many arguments but what they do present will discern the thoughts and intent of our hearts because they are infused with God's word Hebrews 4;12
In short most people who refuse to believe it simply don't want to acknowledge our know God
You don't teach none proven things and you don't teach to conflicting things uless both of them are not proven and are just possiblitys evolution happens and is a fact
How come evolution has not been proven? Who taught you that lie?
@@josealbarran7202 did say it hasn't Been proven it has
Since no Evo has answered my challenge, I'll post it again. Cassini found that Saturn and Titan are no where near 4.5 billion years old, as Evo's need. Can you Evo's explain that?
Why would evolutionary theory say anything about astrophysics? You gotta change up your language. The ignorance of science is plainly obvious. Would you ask biology questions to a mathematician? Would you ask a geneticist to engineer a bridge? Does this help?
Lets word your question like this: "Cassini found that Saturn and Titan are no where near 4.5 billion years old, as astrophysicists need. Can anyone explain that? "
Ok much better, lets start with "astrophysicists need". Astrophysicists dont care about any particular age, they dont care at all. If Saturn formed 100 years ago they wouldn't care at all and it would be an exciting discovery. Science is the pursuit of objective reality. Now lets suppose Titan is 6000 years old just as would fit perfectly with your young earth biblical model would suggest, is that evidence that the universe was created 6000 years ago? No it is not because you still have thousands of other lines of evidence to overturn...this is why young earth creationists are fighting an unwinnable battle, you literally have to overturn every independent physical science, hubbles constant, the speed of light, planetary formation, uniformitarianism, redshift of galaxies etc etc etc. What I would recommend is learning the actual science that you are attacking first . Read a few books learn how this stuff works THEN attack it with criticism and rational thought.
@@IIrandhandleII Evo's need billions of years for their Evolution hoax to work. If the solar system is much younger, their hoax falls apart. So simple!
@@civilization57 lets hear your rebuttal of the Hubble constant if this solar system is so young. What does creation research tell you to think about the Hubble constant?
Lol how does this prove anything?
@@civilization57
First of all, Cassini only mentions the age of Saturn’s rings and not the planet itself. Even if it were, this still dates it to atleast 10 millions years with more certainty for close to 10 times that number. You are delusional sir.
Me side good, they side bad, they side wrong, so me side automatically right side
That sums up creationism perfectly.
@@josephc2370 Says the Evo who censors Creation science from even being discussed in gov't institutions.
@@civilization57 oh crap, I got a boomer mad. Theres a reason that everyone thinks creationists are crazy, they are, its insane some people belive this stuff, EVolution is real and any sane person will tell you that.
@@josephc2370 If evolution is real, then why don't you defend it instead of hurling insults. For starters, give me several examples of current evolution. There should be hundreds since there are 1 million species. And also tell me which human race has evolved the most over the last 50,000 years.
Extra credit points: Why hasn't homosexuality been evolved OUT of the human genome?
@@civilization57 There is a preponderance of evidence to prove evolution is real. From many different branches of science. You can't just say "defend it (evolution)" when it is an established fact through observation of the sciences that study it. Define creationism. Defend it. Tell me exactly how did God create Adam. I can lead you to the water but I can't make you drink. You have to do that. Christianity is also evolving through the centuries.
Should young/flat earthers be censored? No
Should flat/young earthers be ridiculed into oblivion?
Yes
Good luck with that ridiculed thing.
@@Joh2n thank you, going quite well.
For telling the truth?
@@thetruth4580 yes the truth of the flat earth.
@@globalcoupledances lol I'm surprised they allow comments at all.
question for young earth creationists, Which of these were on Noahs ark? Since all animals walked to Noahs ark from their habitats, Im wondering which ones made it onto noahs ark. (No dinosaurs are listed here lol, just homonids for now)
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Australopithecus robustus
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo Naledi
None cause when Noah’s ark is set they would have all been extinct
I like you attitude boy
@@Snootingson lol you know nothing of these fossils right?
I mean I know of them like for example the taung child
Well, my challenge stands. Can anyone tell me which one of the human ethnic groups/races has evolved the most over the past 2.5 million years? Darwin said Evolution "preserved favored races". So which race is most favored? Certainly one has evolved more than the others. Right, Evos?
Depends in what way. Notice how all of your favorite nfl and basketball teams are majority black?
The most homo sapiens genetic diversity is found in East Africa...another prediction of evolution confirmed👍 .
@@IIrandhandleII And all the engineers are Asian? So are you saying that Blacks are genetically superior physically but inferior intellectually? That would follow with your mythology. Are you honest enough to own it?
@@IIrandhandleII So you admit that races differ? Then which one is the most intellectually evolved? Own it. You bought it!
@@civilization57 Shithead, I already explained to you that 1. the "Human Races" have no scientific basis. 2. No population on Earth is more "Evolved" than any other. We all come from a common population. 3. Skin tone is literally only skin deep and is ballanced in native populations to balance Vitamin D production and skin exposure to UV from the sun and risk of skin cancer. 4. The "favored races" in Darwin's time meant "Species" as independent breeding populations, not populations of people with different skin tone.
Well, the challenge stands. Can anyone, anyone at all find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix? We've had one complete failure so far on this video, but nothing more. This should be easy if creationists had anything.
If you reply, you will be required to back up your claims with reasoning and evidence.
There’s no challenge. Most Atheists will believe in Evolution and most poeple who believe in god will believe in Creationism. Those who believe in Evolution will think that they are right and those who believe in Creationism too, so there is no point in trying to convince creationists that they are wrong, just believe what you want to believe and that’s it ;-;
@@sukiofficial3012 The difference is that scientists can back up their claims, while creationists can''t. This challenge demonstrates that.
It's certainly hard for creationists to leave their faith, but it does happen. Generally once they learn what evolution is they will accept it.
It's so frustrating that people can't think of a way evolution and God can coexist. Yes, the Bible says something else but the Bible is written by _humans_ , not god. The research on evolution is simply observing what we find on Earth and making theories, never said anything about God. If anything, _humans_ said that evolution goes against religion. Nature didn't think about anything when branching of into different species, not even disproving religion.
@@abcxyz9852 Well indeed. No reason you can't have both.
I was just watching the fire burning in my wood stove and thanking God for the incredible miracle of oxidation based combustion. How incredible that plants can store solar energy that can be released again through fire to cook our food and warm our homes! Praise God for his brilliant design of nature!
There is no god to thank.
@@garywalker447 So when your heroes, Obama, Piglosi, Biden, Schumer and the rest, say they believe in God, are they lying or just fools?
@@civilization57 One or the other. US politics is so corrupted, so long as they do not try and stuff their religion down my throat, I would let it go.
@@garywalker447 As long as you can stuff your religion of secular, atheist materialism down our throats, right, Gary?
@@civilization57 Secularism is not a religion moron.
Beautifully spoken. Science is a tool. Creationism and evolution are theories that can be based on science, but that doesn’t equate them to a tool, but rather a product.
Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is only a religious doctrine trying to pass itself off as a theory. It offers no physical method by which species form as evolution does.
@@eatmylogic evolution doesn't even offer a theory... Only an hypothesis as to how life came into existence. What man claim as fact, is done so without any actual scientific evidence. However we got here... It wasn't by evolution.
@@michaelreichwein3970 Evolution describes in physical, step-by-step detail how species form-- it has been thoroughly tested, observed and all possible alternative explanations eliminated Just because you are personally ignorant about that doesn't mean it isn't true. Read some science, it would improve your character.
@@eatmylogic FYI.... I read about everything I can get my hands on when it comes to evolution. Do you understand how evolution is supposed to work? Slow incremental changes in the genome over vast amount of time? Do you understand that in reality time is not the evolutionist friend?
@@michaelreichwein3970 You obviously have never read anything about evolution-- instead you've been tricked by Creationist websites posing as "scientific" authorities. I understand exactly how evolution works. Because individuals in a population vary due to genetic mutation, some in the population are better able to survive and reproduce given a particular set of environmental conditions. These individuals generally produce more offspring, thus passing their particular traits on to the next generation. Thus populations change through the generations as environments change and members migrate to new environments. Read some real science for a change.
ATP is the most amazing argument for creation. ATP was required in the first original cell and is impossibly complex. It is the cellular source of energy, the result of a breakdown of sugar and the conversion of nucleic acid ATP to ADP, through the hydrolyzation and release of a 3rd phosphate molecule. Saying this could happen by nature alone is like saying a silicon computer chip could be created by throwing sand into a fire.
@@abhignavijjapurapu209 Self replicating chemicals are like iron ore making steel or silica making glass by fire. But that is a million miles from making a BMW. No self replicating molecules have come any where close to making the 27 organic molecules necessary for life. And even if all 27 molecules miraculously appeared in the same drop of salt water, so what? The most primitive living cell needs about a dozen complex organelles, plus 10,000 molecules perfectly coded DNA to reproduce, plus extremely complex ATP molecules to store and release energy. It is literally easier for a full charged, autonomous Tesla to form from an earthquake in a junk yard.
So explain how your bible describes ATP. Oh I am sooooo sorry, your bible does not have a clue what a cell is let alone what ATP is.
Science explains what ATP is and what it does. Your creationism explains NOTHING. It is entirely useless and pathetic.
@@garywalker447 Tell me, little brain, how did ATP evolve? How did it provide energy for the first cell? You can't because Evolution is a fraud.
Johnny Shit. No, I cannot tell you, not because ATP did not evolve, but because I am not a Biologist and I do not pretend to be. You cannot tell me how your phony god magically created ATP either. The FACT is that you have no fucking clue how anything in biology works, you just parrot the bullshit you read from other sources. You are a liar and a fraud like all the other creatard assholes shitting on science you do not want to understand because if you understand how much it makes sense, your faith in the lie of christianity will break and you will have to admit that you wasted so much time believing and spreading a lie.
@@garywalker447 Silly Evo. What a pathetic argument that because the Bible doesn't explain ATP therefore it is false. The challenge is for you to explain how your hoax could have produced ATP in a drop of salt water before life existed. You can't.
If God created everything, there was a time when he commenced to create. Back of that commencement there must have been an eternity. In that eternity what was this God doing? Was God inactive prior to creation? He certainly did not think. There was nothing to think about. He did not remember. Nothing had ever happened. What did he do? Can you imagine anything more absurd that an infinite intelligence in infinite nothing wasting an eternity?
Well, actually that's something we couldn't tell boarding the idea that this God created the time, so there's no possibility to claim "there was a time when he commenced to create" because as relativity theory explains, we can't talk about time without space, so by creating space, this God then creates time as well and thus, there's no place to the "Back of that commencement there must have been an eternity. In that eternity what was this God doing?", actually we could exclaim "nothing" because the time didn't exist yet, see. Some things are just out of our imagination. Simple things like imagine a new colour or define the start and the end of real numbers. they are just impossible for us to think of due to our own limitations
@@Danny1905 Time is a man made concept that determine past, present, and future. There is no such thing as the beginning of time.
God could have not created time because it is logically impossible.
As well as God can't make a triangle with four sides because a four sided triangle is logically impossible.
"The dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion. So, reality is ultimately TIMELESS."
- Albert Einstein.
and before the big bang what was the world what was the universe
what made the big bang happen
as far as i know explosions dont happen out of nowhere
@@flaviusvector1543 Science is still ongoing, as for now no one can tell but definitely not God.
@@irishnich4456 thats my point evolution with all the modern science still cant be proven and most scientist agree that its just a theory
god on the other hand is beyond science to understand
Young earth creationists can't comprehend god using evolution to make life because they've been told by the young earth church the concept is off limits.
They do what they are told.
To be fair, scientists can’t understand the universe because there’s so friggin much of it. But that doesn’t stop us.
However, just by the very concept of being able to understand how God works, then say that God tampered with the evidence of what he did to deceive geologists like me 6000 years ago, a Christian is stating that he/she has the same knowledge of the physical universe as their god does. And their Bible even has stories of punishment for people who try to be like god. Babel, anyone? But for real, if a Christian believes in young-earth creationism, then while they might not have realized yet, they think God is a moron.
Regarding the timeline of creation stated in Genesis 1 of the Bible, many people think that creation occurred within a 7 "earth-day" period. However, if one reads the actual text of the Bible carefully, it is very clear that the “days” mentioned in Genesis 1 are not referring to the assumed 24-hour earth- days with which we are all accustomed. Because, what is a “day” on earth? Isn’t a "earth-day” the single revolution of the earth around its axis? (By the way, science has shown that the rotation of the earth has not been constant over earth's history. Additionally, every celestial body has a different length for its "day".) According to the Bible, the Earth was not "formed" until the 3rd day of creation. Prior to the 3rd day of creation, the earth was "without form and void". So, how could an "unformed" earth have rotated about its non-existent axis during the first two days of creation to provide a measure of time? Clearly, Universal Consciousness was using a different measure of time for a “day” during the “seven days of creation”. In other words, Universal Consciousness was not using an “earth-day” as a unit measure of time during creation. To think that Universal Consciousness would use an "earth-based time clock" to measure the creation of the universe is akin to the out-dated geocentric belief that the universe revolves around the earth. Even though Universal Consciousness is everywhere at all times, Universal Consciousness did not have to be "on" earth [Obviously, since the earth had not even been formed until the third "day" of creation.] and therefore not limited by an earthly time frame, when He created the heavens and the earth. (By the way, when was the clock invented? When was the unit measure of time for a second, a minute, an hour, a 24-hour day established? These are all relatively new innovations. So, how could they have measured time at the moment of creation.) Universal Consciousness is beyond heaven, earth ... and time.
@@moses777exodus you’re trying way too fucking hard to make a more complicated and mega-vague description of creation feel real. It’s not.
And surprise, Noah’s flood was just a story and did not happen. It did not happen. Geology proves that nowhere in the world on the surface or below can be found the slurry of rock types, grain sizes, bed thicknesses, and fossil diversity REQUIRED for a global flood.
It’s a story. Get the lesson out of it, not a literal historical account of the end of a world, the beginning of a new world, and a few generations of absolutely necessary incest (which your God doesn’t condone).
Stop trying to make your religious bullshit seem real to people as stupid as you. You’re dangerous and your god should fucking hate you for lying about what actually happens in the universe, versus your dumbass arrogant beliefs.
Is your god stupid? Then how the hell do you think you have the mind of God to understand the universe? Scientists know about the universe and we still know and admit that there’s a lot we don’t know. But we know the confines of what we don’t know, and how to find that data.
You just take data from your ass while you talk shit.
@Bizarrerutger because...
Those “points” mean nothing
To know how God created the universe is to be as smart as God, and Christians are jumping right over all the efforts of scientists to know as much as they think God does (which is not very much, if they can understand it).
It’s a complete lack of focus on what the actual pillars of foundation in Christianity are.
I’m not a Christian anymore, but I can at least help them to sift out al the bullshit and embrace their religion in the real world. I’d prefer that Christianity is wiped from humanity and never practiced again (as it is today), but I can’t have that. So I’ll do what I can to help Christians to be less hateful toward science and knowledge, people who have different lifestyles, and people who absolutely know that that god is fake.
Also, lacing something with profanity doesn’t mean anger, but in many contexts means emphasis.
I'm from Poland and I'm creationist. In Europe unfortunately evolution theory is considered an indisputable fact. Teachers learn it in the public elementary and high schools. It's very sad. with God!
Sorry to hear you choose fairy tales over science.
I'm from Mississippi, unfortunately here round earth theory is taught as undisputed fact.. unfortunately kids learn the earth is round in elementary school.
@@IIrandhandleII I'm didn't mean earth is flat. In Bible Earth is round too
@@garywalker447 there are no traces of intermediate forms
@@Redii420 Actually the bible describes the Earth as flat. Christians just ignore that fact.
@megaead69 They will no longer be Christians but yes anyone can. Evolution denies the essence of Christianity which is the redemption and also the creation of God.
For how long 'science' says all life forms have been evolving? And in genesis how long does God says He made everything (ACCORDING TO ITS KIND?) evolution says there is no purpose no hope no wrong, right evil or good, and what does the bible has to say about all those things?
You are undeniably mistaken.They are extremely opposite
Finally someone with sense
Science doesn't care about any of that it says nothing about the supernatural.